Shopping & Style0 min ago
IS extradition to the US too hard or too easy?
23 Answers
http://news.sky.com/h...tics/article/16016475 (Gary McKinnon)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814 (Abu Hamza)
Or is it just that it needs to be easier for moslem clerics and harder for white hackers?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814 (Abu Hamza)
Or is it just that it needs to be easier for moslem clerics and harder for white hackers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Obviously helping Iran's Nuclear weapons programme is forgivable if you are a white businessman and Chairman of your local golf club.
Whereas a religous nutter who says a few unpleasant words is far more dangerous and we need to get get rid as soon as possible.
It should be the same for everyone regardless of their colour, religion or class, but certain newspapers have an agenda and treat them differently, and the poor readers end up very confused and are for and against extradition to the US at the same time.
Whereas a religous nutter who says a few unpleasant words is far more dangerous and we need to get get rid as soon as possible.
It should be the same for everyone regardless of their colour, religion or class, but certain newspapers have an agenda and treat them differently, and the poor readers end up very confused and are for and against extradition to the US at the same time.
Gromit - he deserved to go. Battery packs are on the list of sanctioned items against a Cat III country (which Iran is).
I used to have to manage a Libyan account involving technology and I don't think that this wally can hide behind ignorance of the law. If you are involved in exports of technology, then you will know.
In short, he has a case to answer. The hacking one is not legit as that is not an act of terrorism; well I hope not!
I used to have to manage a Libyan account involving technology and I don't think that this wally can hide behind ignorance of the law. If you are involved in exports of technology, then you will know.
In short, he has a case to answer. The hacking one is not legit as that is not an act of terrorism; well I hope not!
McKinnon has a case to answer:
// McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 United States military and NASA computers over a 13-month period between February 2001 and March 2002.
The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. McKinnon is also accused of copying data, account files and passwords onto his own computer. US authorities claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was over $700,000. //
// McKinnon is accused of hacking into 97 United States military and NASA computers over a 13-month period between February 2001 and March 2002.
The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Army’s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. McKinnon is also accused of copying data, account files and passwords onto his own computer. US authorities claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was over $700,000. //
Charges in the US about the so called Terrorist Training camp were dropped against Hamza's supposed associate.
// In April 2003, the [US] government dropped those charges and filed a complaint accusing Ujaama of providing money, computer equipment and women to Taliban officials in Afghanistan. In February of the following year, Ujaama pled guilty in a plea bargain: in return for a two year sentence, he would provide information for ongoing terrorism investigations—especially for what he knew about Abu Hamza, whose Web site Ujaama once ran.
In 2009, during the trial of Oussama Kassir, Ujaama's promise to help the British men set up a jihad training camp in Oregon was described as a "petty hustle". Kassir, and Haroon Rashid Aswat were two British man who were to be the camp's trainers were disappointed with the facilities Ujaama had provided at the Dog Cry Ranch. According to the Komo News Kassir was "enraged" because "He expected to be welcomed by Muslim recruits, eager to learn the ways of war." Ujaama had provided two recruits Semi Osman, a "mechanic and part time imam" from Seattle, and his teenage brother-in-law who was mentally delayed. Ujaama had provided just two weapons. The only accommodation were two dilapidated trailers, one of which was occupied by the sympathetic wife of the owner of the Ranch. After listening to the British men's complaint during the first day, Ujaama slipped away the night of their arrival. //
// In April 2003, the [US] government dropped those charges and filed a complaint accusing Ujaama of providing money, computer equipment and women to Taliban officials in Afghanistan. In February of the following year, Ujaama pled guilty in a plea bargain: in return for a two year sentence, he would provide information for ongoing terrorism investigations—especially for what he knew about Abu Hamza, whose Web site Ujaama once ran.
In 2009, during the trial of Oussama Kassir, Ujaama's promise to help the British men set up a jihad training camp in Oregon was described as a "petty hustle". Kassir, and Haroon Rashid Aswat were two British man who were to be the camp's trainers were disappointed with the facilities Ujaama had provided at the Dog Cry Ranch. According to the Komo News Kassir was "enraged" because "He expected to be welcomed by Muslim recruits, eager to learn the ways of war." Ujaama had provided two recruits Semi Osman, a "mechanic and part time imam" from Seattle, and his teenage brother-in-law who was mentally delayed. Ujaama had provided just two weapons. The only accommodation were two dilapidated trailers, one of which was occupied by the sympathetic wife of the owner of the Ranch. After listening to the British men's complaint during the first day, Ujaama slipped away the night of their arrival. //
There is a point here, that the media vilify whom they wish and we are sucked in by it.
As is clearly see, by those who know,both Tapin and Mckinnon have clear cases to answer but are portrayed as victims by the press. I have no idea as to their guilt, but we shouldn't use trial by public stupidity, to avoid facing up to the questions.
As for Abu Hamza, that sounds like conspiracy, maybe Carry on Conspiracy, but conspiracy none the less.
I am sure that we can say the Americans are in some cases over zealous, but they are not going to allow the security of there country be snowed under by vagaries.
As is clearly see, by those who know,both Tapin and Mckinnon have clear cases to answer but are portrayed as victims by the press. I have no idea as to their guilt, but we shouldn't use trial by public stupidity, to avoid facing up to the questions.
As for Abu Hamza, that sounds like conspiracy, maybe Carry on Conspiracy, but conspiracy none the less.
I am sure that we can say the Americans are in some cases over zealous, but they are not going to allow the security of there country be snowed under by vagaries.
I think there is an inequality in the extradition laws. Christopher Tappin compared himself to Qatada. I do agree that that evidence of a 'probable cause' to extradite should be shown in cases first.
Hamza's basis of appeal on Article 3 failed. The West is seen as more democratic in its legal process than other countries. However one only needs to look at the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning to know that is not always the case.
Hamza's basis of appeal on Article 3 failed. The West is seen as more democratic in its legal process than other countries. However one only needs to look at the inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning to know that is not always the case.
Too one sided as far as I can make out. The US wants someone we have and says "Jump !". We say, "How high sir ?" We want someone the US has and say, "May we have this one please", and they say, "Well you have to make a good case against one of ours before we let you foreigners have them, so no, go away and come back when you've proved your case."
Yes, a little more than “...a religous nutter who says a few unpleasant words”. Let’s have a look at what the five for whom extradition has been confirmed are accused of:
Abu Hamza - Wanted in the US on 11 charges related to taking 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, promoting violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to set up a jihad training camp in Oregon in the US.
Babar Ahmed - Accused of various offences, including providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, maim or injure people and damage property in a foreign country.
Talha Ahsan - Mr Ahsan is Babar Ahmad's co-accused. He faces similar allegations.
Adel Abdul Bary - Accused of being a key aide to Osama Bin Laden. Wanted on charges of promoting violent jihad against the West and playing a role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa, in which more than 200 people were killed and thousands injured.
Khaled al-Fawwaz - Adel Abdul Bary's co-accused and charged with more than 269 counts of murder
It has taken between seven and fourteen years to get this far. Meanwhile those accused have been living at taxpayers’ (considerable) expense in a country they say they despise and want to remain here because they know that in the unlikely event that they are ever tried here their sentences will be derisory. The US looks after the interests of its own citizens first and foremost and their determination to bring these people to book has my admiration. I only wish we had a government of similar disposition instead of one prepared to consider the rights of criminals and terrorists above those of the people who elected them.
Whilst all this has been going on, Christopher Tappin (charged with conspiracy to sell batteries for Iranian missiles and whom I believe does have a case to answer) has been extradited (no ECHR intervention for him) and is held in custody (no bail fro him as the 65 year old presents a “flight risk”) and was extradited within a few days of the ECHR dismissing his appeal (no three months grace period for him).
The UK will be well rid of these five (if indeed they ever go). They are not simply religious nutters. Nutters they may be, and unconvicted they may be. But they appear to be extremely dangerous individuals with a pathological hatred for the West and have every bit as much a case to answer as Mr Tappin.
Abu Hamza - Wanted in the US on 11 charges related to taking 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, promoting violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to set up a jihad training camp in Oregon in the US.
Babar Ahmed - Accused of various offences, including providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, maim or injure people and damage property in a foreign country.
Talha Ahsan - Mr Ahsan is Babar Ahmad's co-accused. He faces similar allegations.
Adel Abdul Bary - Accused of being a key aide to Osama Bin Laden. Wanted on charges of promoting violent jihad against the West and playing a role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa, in which more than 200 people were killed and thousands injured.
Khaled al-Fawwaz - Adel Abdul Bary's co-accused and charged with more than 269 counts of murder
It has taken between seven and fourteen years to get this far. Meanwhile those accused have been living at taxpayers’ (considerable) expense in a country they say they despise and want to remain here because they know that in the unlikely event that they are ever tried here their sentences will be derisory. The US looks after the interests of its own citizens first and foremost and their determination to bring these people to book has my admiration. I only wish we had a government of similar disposition instead of one prepared to consider the rights of criminals and terrorists above those of the people who elected them.
Whilst all this has been going on, Christopher Tappin (charged with conspiracy to sell batteries for Iranian missiles and whom I believe does have a case to answer) has been extradited (no ECHR intervention for him) and is held in custody (no bail fro him as the 65 year old presents a “flight risk”) and was extradited within a few days of the ECHR dismissing his appeal (no three months grace period for him).
The UK will be well rid of these five (if indeed they ever go). They are not simply religious nutters. Nutters they may be, and unconvicted they may be. But they appear to be extremely dangerous individuals with a pathological hatred for the West and have every bit as much a case to answer as Mr Tappin.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.